According to a major trend in Hegel scholarship, Hegel advocates a McDowell-style transformativist conception of the human mind. Central to this conception is a methodological dualism, according to which phenomena belonging to the rational mind, in contrast to those belonging to non-rational nature, must be accounted for from within the ‘space of reasons.’ In this paper I argue, by contrast, that Hegel rejects methodological dualism. For Hegel, a constitutive aspect of the rational mind is the activity of expression. I show how Hegel’s philosophy of mind adequately accounts for low-level forms of expressivity without appealing to capacities connected to conceptual thought and judgment, and that he does so by drawing on methods similar to those employed within the empirical sciences of his time. Thus, for Hegel, the sphere of the rational mind is broader than the McDowellian space of reasons.
{"title":"Transformativism and Expressivity in Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind","authors":"Julia Peters","doi":"10.1515/agph-2021-0082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2021-0082","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 According to a major trend in Hegel scholarship, Hegel advocates a McDowell-style transformativist conception of the human mind. Central to this conception is a methodological dualism, according to which phenomena belonging to the rational mind, in contrast to those belonging to non-rational nature, must be accounted for from within the ‘space of reasons.’ In this paper I argue, by contrast, that Hegel rejects methodological dualism. For Hegel, a constitutive aspect of the rational mind is the activity of expression. I show how Hegel’s philosophy of mind adequately accounts for low-level forms of expressivity without appealing to capacities connected to conceptual thought and judgment, and that he does so by drawing on methods similar to those employed within the empirical sciences of his time. Thus, for Hegel, the sphere of the rational mind is broader than the McDowellian space of reasons.","PeriodicalId":517350,"journal":{"name":"Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"42 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140253449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a debate about whether particular properties are for Aristotle non-recurrent and trope-like individuals or recurrent universals. I argue that Physics I.7 provides evidence that he took non-substantial particulars to be neither; they are instead non-recurrent modes. Physics I.7 also helps show why this matters. Particular properties must be individual modes in order for Aristotle to preserve three key philosophical commitments: that objects of ordinary experience are primary substances, that primary substances undergo genuine change, and that primary substances are ontologically fundamental.
{"title":"Aristotle on Non-substantial Particulars, Fundamentality, and Change","authors":"Keren Wilson Shatalov","doi":"10.1515/agph-2023-0027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2023-0027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 There is a debate about whether particular properties are for Aristotle non-recurrent and trope-like individuals or recurrent universals. I argue that Physics I.7 provides evidence that he took non-substantial particulars to be neither; they are instead non-recurrent modes. Physics I.7 also helps show why this matters. Particular properties must be individual modes in order for Aristotle to preserve three key philosophical commitments: that objects of ordinary experience are primary substances, that primary substances undergo genuine change, and that primary substances are ontologically fundamental.","PeriodicalId":517350,"journal":{"name":"Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"167 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140460346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper aims to explain the distinction between syllogisms and subsyllogisms in Stoic logic. Subsyllogisms replace at least one premise in a syllogism with a premise that is, according to Galen and Alexander, equipollent to the respective syllogistic premise. This equipollence is not synonymy of meaning between two linguistic expressions, but obtains between two propositions when they are true or false by the same standard. Subsyllogistic premises are simple propositions that are equipollent to the non-simple premises of the respective syllogisms. For subsyllogistic premises that replace syllogistic premises consist of predicates combining with cases rather than of connectives or negations governing propositions. Because of this difference in their premises, subsyllogisms have a different logical form than syllogisms and are not formally valid.
{"title":"The Stoic Distinction between Syllogisms and Subsyllogisms","authors":"Fabian Ruge","doi":"10.1515/agph-2022-0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2022-0018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper aims to explain the distinction between syllogisms and subsyllogisms in Stoic logic. Subsyllogisms replace at least one premise in a syllogism with a premise that is, according to Galen and Alexander, equipollent to the respective syllogistic premise. This equipollence is not synonymy of meaning between two linguistic expressions, but obtains between two propositions when they are true or false by the same standard. Subsyllogistic premises are simple propositions that are equipollent to the non-simple premises of the respective syllogisms. For subsyllogistic premises that replace syllogistic premises consist of predicates combining with cases rather than of connectives or negations governing propositions. Because of this difference in their premises, subsyllogisms have a different logical form than syllogisms and are not formally valid.","PeriodicalId":517350,"journal":{"name":"Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"124 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140460673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In his paper “Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Berkeley Missed and Descartes Saw,” Myles Burnyeat purports to show not only that idealism was not endorsed by any ancient philosopher, but also that it could not have been endorsed before Descartes; Greek philosophy was dominated by an “unquestioned, unquestioning assumption of realism.” By ‘idealism,’ Burnyeat means mainly Berkeley’s immaterialism, but he also extends his demonstration to something more akin to Kant’s transcendental idealism. After arguing that this last version has more historical credentials to the title of idealism than Berkeley’s doctrine, I compare Burnyeat’s reading to Natorp’s interpretation in Platos Ideenlehre, subtitled “An Introduction to Idealism.” Natorp argues that there is, on the contrary, a kind of underlying idealism in Greek philosophy, one that can be discerned on the basis of an interpretation of the meaning of the verb ‘to be’ which has found support in more recent research.
{"title":"Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Natorp Saw and Burnyeat Missed","authors":"Sylvain Delcomminette","doi":"10.1515/agph-2022-0098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2022-0098","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In his paper “Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Berkeley Missed and Descartes Saw,” Myles Burnyeat purports to show not only that idealism was not endorsed by any ancient philosopher, but also that it could not have been endorsed before Descartes; Greek philosophy was dominated by an “unquestioned, unquestioning assumption of realism.” By ‘idealism,’ Burnyeat means mainly Berkeley’s immaterialism, but he also extends his demonstration to something more akin to Kant’s transcendental idealism. After arguing that this last version has more historical credentials to the title of idealism than Berkeley’s doctrine, I compare Burnyeat’s reading to Natorp’s interpretation in Platos Ideenlehre, subtitled “An Introduction to Idealism.” Natorp argues that there is, on the contrary, a kind of underlying idealism in Greek philosophy, one that can be discerned on the basis of an interpretation of the meaning of the verb ‘to be’ which has found support in more recent research.","PeriodicalId":517350,"journal":{"name":"Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139896491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This essay explores Wittgenstein’s encounter with Stumpf’s work in Tone Psychology during a rarely studied period in Wittgenstein’s early career when he worked as a researcher in Myers’s laboratory for experimental psychology in Cambridge. I argue that Stumpf’s emphasis on the notion of musicality as the ability to characterize what is ‘musical’ about music troubled Wittgenstein’s initial formulation of his career-long adherence to the comparison between language and music. In the Tractatus the importance of internal projective relations far exceeds that of arbitrariness in language. This results in the curious elision of musicality in the Tractatus, as shown in his gramophone analogy. The acknowledgment of the enormous complexity pertaining to the facts of human life remained underdeveloped in Wittgenstein’s philosophy until the anthropological turn in his middle-period. Only then do we see the blooming of the language-as-music simile and its eventual impact on Wittgenstein’s later philosophy.
{"title":"Carl Stumpf and the Curious Incident of Music in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus","authors":"Eran Guter","doi":"10.1515/agph-2021-0141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2021-0141","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay explores Wittgenstein’s encounter with Stumpf’s work in Tone Psychology during a rarely studied period in Wittgenstein’s early career when he worked as a researcher in Myers’s laboratory for experimental psychology in Cambridge. I argue that Stumpf’s emphasis on the notion of musicality as the ability to characterize what is ‘musical’ about music troubled Wittgenstein’s initial formulation of his career-long adherence to the comparison between language and music. In the Tractatus the importance of internal projective relations far exceeds that of arbitrariness in language. This results in the curious elision of musicality in the Tractatus, as shown in his gramophone analogy. The acknowledgment of the enormous complexity pertaining to the facts of human life remained underdeveloped in Wittgenstein’s philosophy until the anthropological turn in his middle-period. Only then do we see the blooming of the language-as-music simile and its eventual impact on Wittgenstein’s later philosophy.","PeriodicalId":517350,"journal":{"name":"Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"23 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140506060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In Marx’s posthumously published manuscripts from 1857–1863, we find a systematic exposition of his concept of subsumption. Though much has been written about it, significant interpretative gaps persist. In this article, I begin filling these gaps by examining the emergence of Marx’s concept of subsumption. I will argue that in the Grundrisse Marx brings together distinct but complementary elements from Hegel’s theories of judgment and teleology to coin two new and well delineated concepts of subsumption that prefigure his later concepts of formal and real subsumption. These two concepts may be defined as: (a) the process of acquiring the social relational property of being a means to an end; (b) the process by which changes in non-relational properties occur in something due to this acquisition – and occur to better suit said end.
{"title":"The Emergence of Marx’s Concept of Subsumption","authors":"T. Giladi","doi":"10.1515/agph-2022-0074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2022-0074","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Marx’s posthumously published manuscripts from 1857–1863, we find a systematic exposition of his concept of subsumption. Though much has been written about it, significant interpretative gaps persist. In this article, I begin filling these gaps by examining the emergence of Marx’s concept of subsumption. I will argue that in the Grundrisse Marx brings together distinct but complementary elements from Hegel’s theories of judgment and teleology to coin two new and well delineated concepts of subsumption that prefigure his later concepts of formal and real subsumption. These two concepts may be defined as: (a) the process of acquiring the social relational property of being a means to an end; (b) the process by which changes in non-relational properties occur in something due to this acquisition – and occur to better suit said end.","PeriodicalId":517350,"journal":{"name":"Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"6 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140505616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：